A Burlington city councilor raised ethical concerns Wednesday over City Council President Jane Knodell’s (P-Central District) direct communications with a former Burlington Telecom bidder.
Councilor Joan Shannon (D-South District) criticized Knodell for phone calls to ZRF Partners over the past weeks, which, she said, “wreak havoc on the process.”
“Councilors should not be negotiating with anybody,” she said. The council had hired the head of Dorman and Fawcett, Terry Dorman, as negotiator for a reason, Shannon said.
The criticism came as the two finalist bidders, Tucows and the co-op Keep BT Local, met Wednesday to try to hammer out a compromise proposal to buy Burlington Telecom. Monday, the council deadlocked in a 6-6 vote, and asked the two bidders to partner up. The two entities have until the end of the day Friday to put forward a joint proposal.
If they can’t come to an agreement — or if the council doesn’t support their agreement — two previously eliminated bidders, Schurz Communications and ZRF Partners, would be readmitted to the process.
Shannon also said Knodell’s conversations with other bidders were part of a political charade by councilors who voted for Keep BT Local but now are backing off that support.
“President Knodell isn’t exactly rooting for @KeepBTLocal & @TingBurlington to successfully negotiate,” Shannon tweeted on Wednesday. “I hope KBTL supporters like Schurz because it looks like that’s where we’re headed.”
Councilor Dave Hartnett (D-North District) agreed; he guessed that Schurz would win if given a second chance before the council.
Knodell acknowledged that she had several phone conversations with ZRF Partners over the last few weeks, but said she did not negotiate anything. “To characterize my conversations with anyone as negotiations is absolutely wrong and baseless,” she said. “The council has been very divided. I felt it was prudent to keep our options open.”
Hartnett said he supported Knodell’s communications, saying that it was the only way to ensure that the process the council voted on Monday was followed. “I think the council’s lost trust in the format of Terry Dorman and the administration” as negotiators, he said.
Councilor Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) also reached out to Schurz, he said, and on Wednesday, he defended those calls. “Obviously we should not be negotiating, but it’s important to be prepared, because we know there’s a timeline,” Wright said. “If we sprung it on them, then we’d be getting criticism of, how are we going to do this on the tight timeline?”
“I think we should stay on the high road here,” Wright added, urging councilors to focus on the negotiations at hand.
While communications with bidders without council approval do not explicitly violate council rules, they obscure a process meant to take place in the public eye, Shannon said. Knodell had not told the council about her communications, Shannon added.
In an interview last Friday, Mayor Miro Weinberger also said that he had discouraged councilors from reaching out to bidders. “That’s not something I support,” he said.
On Wednesday, councilors all around were quick to fling barbs. Knodell said she was “disappointed in Councilor Shannon’s remarks.”
Hartnett, too, was quick to lambast Weinberger’s lack of transparency throughout the process.
“If people want to know why we’re at where we’re at, it’s because of the mayor and what’s he been doing,” Hartnett said. “Quite honestly, it’s been a wreck.”
None of the councilors who spoke to Seven Days said they had heard updates on the negotiations between Tucows and KBTL. That’s the way it should stay, Knodell said. “I’m hoping that councilors and the mayor will let the parties negotiate freely without interference,” she said.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I have been following your BT debate from Nebraska. My provider is a well-manged successful co-op with quite fast, optic even rural connections…apparently a rarity in the U.S. Burlington should be able to have a publicly owned telecom. I fault your community, which includes the government, media, and you citizens with a continual counterproductive emphasis on Personality Politics. There seems to be no one publicly addressing the specific economic logistics of the situation. If you look back at the reportage history including your replies to articles done by 7 Days, there is continual No Hard Data feed being presented to your detriment. You can’t educate in an echo chamber and you can’t educate or progress effectively without the facts.
@Penelope you are 100% correct. Thanks for putting it so clearly. And the reason its important to support whatever collaborative agreement that Ting + KBTL comes up with is to avoid a prolonged process that pushes us beyond the Dec 31 cut-off. It may not be perfect – but I suppose we need to just wait and see what such a structure looks like.
I live in the South End, do not vote for Joan Shannon or Chip Mason, but contacted them both a few weeks before the the final vote. Chip Mason responded immediately, and we agreed to disagree. Joan Shannon did not reply until after her junket to Toronto, and was slightly less than politic in her reply to me. I don’t trust her or agree with her as far as I could throw her. That she is a shill for Miro I don’t doubt, as are several on the council. I disapprove of much of what Miro has done, and am skeptical about anyone who kowtows to his leadership.
I am sorry that this process has reached such acrimonious levels. I hope KBTL and Ting can reach an agreement, as they were my first and second choices (in that order) of the final three (which would have been a final four if a certain person hadn’t made what I consider to be highly unethical communications to #4). If we go to a new vote with four participants, I don’t believe any party will get a majority of the votes, and I suspect we will have a tie for the second place bidder. That possibility was not considered in setting the rules and I fancy it will cause more acrimony and spitting before it is resolved.
Do people understand that Burlington no longer owns BT? And voting for Ting would give Burlington back partial ownership? Burlington will get nothing if Bluewater decides to reject the city’s choice, and they will reject KBTL.
The owners and creditors of BT will not approve a ridiculous vote that awards BT to the low bidder likeliest to bankrupt the telecom within five years. Thanks are due to Mayor Weinberger and the councilors who support Ting. Their bid allows Burlington to regain partial ownership, and BT will grow exponentially because Ting has the money to expand the network, making the city’s minority stake that much more valuable.
Knodell’s argument is that the percentages aren’t good enough, the terms aren’t good enough. Well, thanks to the shortsightedness of some councilors the city is about to have zero ownership in BT with zero choice of buyer. I can’t believe we came so close to a fairy tale resolution only to have it snatched away by a handful of foolhardy councilors lacking business management expertise.
I’m sure glad I don’t live in Burlington. People in Brookfield tend to get along pretty good without the drama of this soap opera.
I support all bids that are financially sound and offer management expertise, does not provoke lawsuits, and moves BT forward. Obviously KBTL does not qualify. Why they are even in the running is a statement on some of the city council’s lack of math skills.
Hopefully Ting and KBTL can come up with a joint plan. I think KBTL could play an important role guiding BT’s future and providing guardianship over the original spirit of BT. Who knows, but since its pretty clear that they’re support on the Council is waning, or empty to begin with by some, if they want to have any relevance and role, they really need to work with Ting. And I think any collaboration will make the eventual entity stronger. Go KBTL + TING.